National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

The Works at Wyomissing, LLC v. Youth Fellowship & Rescue c/o Guillermo Jalil

Claim Number: FA0605000720831

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is The Works at Wyomissing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa M. Hodgen, of Leisawitz Heller, 2855 Century Blvd., Wyomissing, PA 19610.  Respondent is Youth Fellowship & Rescue c/o Guillermo Jalil (“Respondent”), 922 Locust Street, Reading, PA 19604.

 

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

 

The domain names at issue are <theworksatwyomissing.com>, <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

 

PANEL

 

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 30, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 30, 2006.

 

On June 1, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <theworksatwyomissing.com>, <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On June 6, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 26, 2006 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@theworksatwyomissing.com, postmaster@theworkssucks.com and postmaster@gearedforfunsucks.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 26, 2006.

 

On June 29, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Preliminarily, it should be pointed out that Respondent states it intended to let the <theworksatwyomissing.com> domain name expire and that it “willingly relinquishes” this domain name to Complainant.   Because Respondent has admitted it does not have an interest in the <theworksatwyomissing.com> domain name, the Panel elects to forego the traditional UDRP analysis with respect to this domain name and will order the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer).  

 

Accordingly, the following analysis is limited to the remaining two domain names:   <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com>.

 

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

 

A.     Complainant

 

Complainant, The Works at Wyomissing, LLC, owns The Works restaurant and entertainment complex in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.  It has registered two trademarks: “Geared for Fun,” and “The Works at Wyomissing.”   With respect to the <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com> domain names, Complainant contends that these domain names are identical to its registered trademarks with the exception of adding the word “sucks.”  Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of these domain names is tarnishing Complainant’s trademarks and that Respondent’s conduct is in bad faith.

 

B.     Respondent

 

Respondent, Youth Fellowship and Rescue, is a faith-based youth group that focuses on drug prevention.  It contends that it is using the two domain names to complain about the Complainant and an incident that occurred in September 2005.  Respondent asserts that its dispute with Complainant arose after an assistant manager of Complainant asked a group of minority children, supervised by Respondent, to leave the restaurant, allegedly stating, “We don’t want your kind here.”    Respondent offered to discuss this situation “over a pizza, paid by Respondent,” but contends that there has been no response from Complainant to this offer.  By inserting the word “sucks” into the domain name, Respondent contends that there cannot be any confusing similarity with Complainant’s marks and it is defending its right to protest the actions of the Complainant based upon “principle.”

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant owns The Works restaurant and entertainment complex in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.  It has registered two trademarks: GEARED FOR FUN! and THE WORKS AT WYOMISSING.  Respondent Youth Fellowship and Rescue is using the two domain names to complain about the Complainant and an incident that occurred in September 2006.  A group of minority children, supervised by Respondent, were asked to leave the restaurant, and a manager of the restaurant stated: “We don’t want your kind here.”    Respondent is using the two domain names to express its objection to Complainant’s actions toward the youth members of Respondent’s group.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)   the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Because Complainant has not shown that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, it is not necessary to address the second and third elements of Policy 4(a).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Although there are a number of ICANN decisions that have reached a different conclusion, see, e.g., ADT Servs. AG v. ADT Sucks.com, D2001-0213 (WIPO Apr. 23, 2001), the Panel concludes that the better reasoned decisions hold that the addition of the word “sucks” to a trademark or service mark sufficiently distinguishes the domain name from the mark.  Thus, the inclusion of the term “sucks” in the <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com> domain names sufficiently differentiates these domain names from Complainant’s THE WORKS AT WYOMISSING and GEARED FOR FUN! marks and therefore the domain names are not confusingly similar to the marks within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See KB Home v. RegisterFly.com- Ref# 9323034, FA 506771 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the addition of the term “sucks” to the complainant’s KB HOME mark in the <kbhomesucks.com> domain name did not make the domain name confusingly similar to the mark because a reasonable person would not conclude that a person who registers a domain name containing the term “sucks” has any relation to the owner of the mark); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com, D2000-1104 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding that the respondent has rights and legitimate interests to use the <wallmartcanadasucks.com> domain name as a forum for criticism of the complainant).

 

As one commentator has observed:

 

            The absolute lack of confusion between a trademark and a “sucks.com” domain            name suggests that ICANN panels should never decide these “sucks.com” cases    in favor of the complainant.  Panels who do so are overreaching and misapplying    the Uniform Policy. 

 

Robert A. Badgley, Domain Name Disputes at 6-61 (2002).

 

DECISION

 

Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief with respect to <theworkssucks.com> and <gearedforfunsucks.com> shall be DENIED.

 

With respect to <theworksatwyomissing.com>, it is Ordered that the domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: July 7, 2006

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum